But we do actually class what happened in Rwanda as genocide. People trying to extend that definition to slavery are cheapening the term and by extension making it a less serious charge both historically and for the future should it happen again.
It's like those animal rights weirdos trying to call people eating meat a Holocaust for animals. It isn't, all it does is make them look crazy.
I agree in principle but Starkey making these sort of points feels like cold semantics in the face of horror, like saying to a gang victim who says he was tortured, "Well, that's not exactly torture in the correct meaning of the word, it's more like repeated grievous bodily harm".. Preserving the precise meaning of language is important, but if genocide is used as a generic word for "causing terrible suffering and death for millions of people of a particular race" I think we get the idea, and it's unhelpfully academic to quibble "but they weren't actually trying to wipe them out".
I saw a brief clip of Starkey being interviewed in which he said something (the accusation of getting rid of black people?) didn't work because there are so many "damn blacks" here.
"Damn blacks" is all I heard from it. He sounds like he is using the James O'Brien technique of saying something controversial then wriggling out of it on a technicality or pretending to be amazed anyone would take umbrage at it. Basically trying to be too clever by half
I’m sure someone of Starkey’s intelligence will look back at that tape, and agree it came across as more than a little racist - at a time when racism has been in the news, and other people have been choosing their words very carefully to avoid unnecessary offence.
I think he was purposely saying it to draw attention to himself then explain why he "didn't mean it like that", but if so, that's nonsense. It is blatantly rude and disrespectful at best - would any person, let alone any black person, hear it and not think it a pejorative statement?
Has he even apologised or said he didn't mean it like that yet?
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
To be known by one's first name is, of course, the prerogative of knights, baronets and (if memory serves) the younger sons of dukes and earls. The simplest solution to this dilemma would be for Mr Johnson to award himself a K.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
Some people are just first name people (in casual conversation or even insult) -
The Lobby hacks are furious about “their” briefings being televised - Guido has been campaigning for televised briefings for years.
As for the government having over 4,000 PR people to start with - what the...?
Televised broefings means fewer interviews with ministers and the PM, especially. That's what this is all about. Johnson has been running away from scrutiny his entire political life. Once again today we saw why.
Neither the PM nor ministers are/were interviewed at lobby briefings.
+1 - this is just moving things from a paper based world into one more suitable for the modern era - with video available when you want to talk about the briefing.
New media and independent media have been pushing for this for years.
The Lobby system allows the government to favour allowing a small group of MSM journalists to translate their own words, with the inevitable favouritism that relationship engenders on both sides.
After the woeful performance of the usual half-dozen Lobby hacks at the daily coronavirus briefings, it’s hardly a surprise that government are wanting to open things up.
Is igt not however also an act of centralization in No. 10? (Not sure if this is actually so.)
That’s how it’s been portrayed by those opposing the proposals. I’d question why the government needs over 4,000 PR people in the first place (at a cost of what, a couple of hundred million a year?), and also the very cosy revolving door between people in media and government jobs.
I'm still puzzled about the practicalities, thinking about it. The reduction from 4000 to 20 is massive even allowing for some overstaffing - and a lot of inquiries and media contacts will be basic level stuff such as "Wing Commander Biggles gets his DSC" which can be done more easily at dept level than by some completely differtent dept and yet don't reflectr on gmt policy. Are they going to keep media contact people on in the depts under a different name?
Is it a reduction from 4,000 to 20?
Just because the headline number is being reduced by 4,000 doesn't mean that 4,000 was the entirety of the number. Its entirely possible its being reduced from 8,000 to 4,020 for instance.
I enjoyed Stodge`s header. I think he could be right - and I cling to the hope that there is more to Johnson than meets the eye. I`m delighted that Cummings, a liberal and such a formidible intellectual force, is at at the heart of it and suspect that Stodge may agree. I know I`ll be shot for saying so.
Why?
It's an interesting thought and on a superior site like this there is no reason why it shouldn't be seriously considered, even if one does not agree.
Most of us pull our punches at time (PhilipThompson, DuraAce and Malcy apart).
Especially on "tricky" issues such a LGBT, BLM and, I`d suggest, an admiration of Cummings.
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
People are allowed to be biased
They are. Hence why EYE am keen to focus this message - that promulgating "Boris" helps cement his brand - on people who are not supporters of his.
There is nothing "patronizing" about this - as I note @kle4 keeps saying - I am simply bringing an issue to attention for due consideration.
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
To be known by one's first name is, of course, the prerogative of knights, baronets and (if memory serves) the younger sons of dukes and earls. The simplest solution to this dilemma would be for Mr Johnson to award himself a K.
But then he would run afoul of the fact that Monty Python got there first.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
James. Although you can forgive Brown I think...he is many things but not a sex machine I wager.
You say this but to me that was one of the things he exuded. Virility.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
Some people are just first name people (in casual conversation or even insult) -
"Maggie" Thatcher "Dave" Cameron
Some are surname people
Kinnock Trump Clinton (the President) Obama Blair
Some are first (or abbreviation) + surname
Gordon Brown John Smith "Ted" Heath "Tony" Benn
Its true in all walks in life. Its really not important.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
But no one called him Tony, Tories called him BLiar. And "call me Dave" was a focus of derision from all but his most ardent fans. Cameron was always Cameron.
Boris is the self-styled rockstar politician. "Boris" is a term of endearment like Elvis or Prince. It is also a self- constructed character stage name, as someone has suggested.down thread.
I believe it's what the Americans call 'triggering the libs', since he knows perfectly well that thousands upon thousands of them will now spend the entire day combing the internet for his gestures and tweeting them out in righteous and yet exquisitely impotent fury...
I believe it's what the Americans call 'triggering the libs', since he knows perfectly well that thousands upon thousands of them will now spend the entire day combing the internet for his gestures and tweeting them out in righteous and yet exquisitely impotent fury...
So it is more gaslighting then. Fair play for your honesty.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
But no one called him Tony, Tories called him BLiar. And "call me Dave" was a focus of derision from all but his most ardent fans. Cameron was always Cameron.
Boris is the self-styled rockstar politician. "Boris" is a term of endearment like Elvis or Prince. It is also a self- constructed character stage name, as someone has suggested.down thread.
I never called him Bliar. That was as idiotic as people who refer to BoZo or Sir Keith. I have more self-respect.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
I enjoyed Stodge`s header. I think he could be right - and I cling to the hope that there is more to Johnson than meets the eye. I`m delighted that Cummings, a liberal and such a formidible intellectual force, is at at the heart of it and suspect that Stodge may agree. I know I`ll be shot for saying so.
Why?
It's an interesting thought and on a superior site like this there is no reason why it shouldn't be seriously considered, even if one does not agree.
Most of us pull our punches at time (PhilipThompson, DuraAce and Malcy apart).
Especially on "tricky" issues such a LGBT, BLM and, I`d suggest, an admiration of Cummings.
I’d like to think there’s a larger covert Cummings fan club than overt, at least on here.
If you were starting a government communications operation, there’s no way you’d have 4,000 PR people but only ever brief a couple of dozen favoured journalists and do it in private. Not unless you wanted the government to be totally unaccountable.
Those couple of dozen favoured hacks are really going to squeal, but open briefings are a huge step forward.
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
I`m doing my bit. Down to Devon for three nights from tomorrow (first day of accommodation openings, pubs will be frequented). Then off abroad for two weeks from 12 July.
I enjoyed Stodge`s header. I think he could be right - and I cling to the hope that there is more to Johnson than meets the eye. I`m delighted that Cummings, a liberal and such a formidible intellectual force, is at at the heart of it and suspect that Stodge may agree. I know I`ll be shot for saying so.
I`m doing my bit. Down to Devon for three nights from tomorrow (first day of accommodation openings, pubs will be frequented). Then off abroad for two weeks from 12 July.
I enjoyed Stodge`s header. I think he could be right - and I cling to the hope that there is more to Johnson than meets the eye. I`m delighted that Cummings, a liberal and such a formidible intellectual force, is at at the heart of it and suspect that Stodge may agree. I know I`ll be shot for saying so.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
The Lobby hacks are furious about “their” briefings being televised - Guido has been campaigning for televised briefings for years.
As for the government having over 4,000 PR people to start with - what the...?
Televised broefings means fewer interviews with ministers and the PM, especially. That's what this is all about. Johnson has been running away from scrutiny his entire political life. Once again today we saw why.
Neither the PM nor ministers are/were interviewed at lobby briefings.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
It's a definite advantage for a politician to be known by their first name - gets across a matey feeling and probably is connected to the "Personality" polling thing that @isam has been mentioning recently. It was certainly a successful part of Blair's branding too.
So, as an opponent of Johnson I will use Johnson, and if you find me using a politician's first name it's probably a sign I support them - or they've successfully won the PR battle to have me use their first name without thinking about it.
None of this is new. Labour made a doomed attempt to try and get people to call Dobson "Frank" when he was cast as the sacrificial lamb against Livingstone (who was known by more people as Ken then than now).
So at a stroke we have 30k fewer cases. I wonder how much damage has been done to the UK because of this unnecessary double counting. If we'd been reporting these accurate figures for the last month would the UK still be seen as a leper colony like Leicester?
The key stat for me has always been the number of people admitted to hospital as I have always been unsure of the accuracy of the Covid test. For information there is now not a single Covid patient in any of Hampshire hospitals. So thats a County with a population of 2.1 million with no Covid inpatients.
Fantastic news! Does that mean we can all follow Boris' earlier advice and spend our way out of recession, down the pub? I have read that as a government invitation to get absolutely s***faced on Saturday, I suspect I am not alone.
Johnson has just been on radio saying that it is not a licence to get s***faced.
Perhaps he should have thought of that before deciding to open pubs on a Saturday. Criminal levels of stupidity.
The criminal stupidity is if the public abuse the situation.
In the recent poll 59% would blame the public if we have to go into lockdown again
Oh come on. They KNOW people will get shitfaced. They WANT people to get shitfaced. Its our patriotic duty to get shitfaced. JRM has bought a yard glass for shitfacery purposes. Mrs Gove wants to get back to a normal where shitfaced people have a good old fashioned British fight.
Shitfaced people spend money in the economy. Shitfaced people get merry and forget their troubles. The entire reason for 4th of July is to have a big party to show how normal things are. The idea that its the fault of the public for running out of their cage when you open the cage is absurd. And Shagger knows it. He's taking you for a fool mate.
Most pubs are not opening tomorrow
And most pub-goers are not going to the pub tomorrow.
For goodness sake! The 70% staying at home are not the ones we need worry about.
If it's going to make so little difference economically, which is your defence of the policy, why are we taking the risk?
Yeah, let's just keep everything shut forever until there is zero risk.
That is a failed argument, on your own terms.
You have said it is safe because hardly anyone will go out, which defeats the economic argument. I am saying those desperate to get to drinking establishments are the very people common sense tells us would those that would be best advised to stay away. A and E will be buzzing on Saturday, so I suppose some economic activity will be generated
Of course there is a balance, but the incidence of the virus is so low that the rewards likely outweigh the risk. If you required that the hospitality sector remain shut until there was no risk, it would probably be another year before they were open.
Yes it is a balance of risk, and yes we need to return to normal as best we can. However, the wizard wheeze gesture of opening the pubs on (American) Independence Day, which falls, this year on a Saturday is foolhardy in the extreme.
Why? If people want to go there are more hours in the day for them to do it. Otherwise it'd be a mad rush starting at 5pm.
Let's see how A and E copes on Saturday. Let's hope you are right and I am wrong.
They are probably better prepared than ever. No one is doing anything so admissions are way down!
Let's assume that is correct. It is still a poor justification for encouraging idiots to get rat-arsed.
Nobody is encouraging idiots but we just have to start opening our economy.
I would expect Starmer to be following a similar path to Boris but Boris has an army of remainers and the left who dislike him with a passion and that dislike takes away rational argument
Starmer , Boris. Why the difference in using surnames ?
Because some people are known by their forename, some by the surname. Get over it.
A bit more to it than that. "Boris" is a brand - and a very powerful one.
Remember 'Not Flash, Just Gordon'?
It's not Boris' fault that he can actually do branding...
It's not his fault at all. He's built a best-selling brand and hats off to him for it.
All I'm seeking to do is tip off those who are not his supporters but are buying into the brand - by promulgating its "Boris" labeling - that this is what they are doing.
For these people the switch from "Boris" to "Johnson" might feel awkward at first - a little forced - but as with many good habits perseverance will pay off and once it's established they will feel better in themselves and will never look back.
And if enough do it, it will cost Bor ... Johnson big time. In fact it could all but kill him off imo. That's the prize.
BTW, I am pursuing this initiative in flesh & blood life too, not just on here. If somebody in my presence calls him "Boris", I ask them if they are a supporter of his or the Cons. If the answer to this is "No", then I tip them off. Not tick them off, please note, I tip them off (as above).
Agreed. I have always preferred calling him "Johnson", particularly as it is a colloquialism in the US for penis. It is so obsequious when followers of an individual they don't know refer to their idol by their first name.
Exactly the same as the unthinking moronic lefties who refer to Corbyn as "Jeremy" or even Jezza. He is Corbyn - an extremely thick ex-leader of the Labour Party who allowed Johnson, a lazy and incompetent narcissist to become PM.
Just how childish are you?
Use of "Jeremy" was always a useful flag for unthinking Corbyn sycophant when in conversation with other Labour party members. The "Boris" thing is more absurd because it's so obviously a deliberate piece of branding and yet people won't see it.
It’s a good piece of branding and you’re absolutely furious about it.
It's not a matter of being furious. It's a matter of recognizing the issue and acting on it. Not if you're a supporter of his. If you're a supporter, all is fine and dandy. "Boris" away to your heart's content. But non supporters should try and make the switch. Drop the "Boris", go with "Johnson".
But we do actually class what happened in Rwanda as genocide. People trying to extend that definition to slavery are cheapening the term and by extension making it a less serious charge both historically and for the future should it happen again.
It's like those animal rights weirdos trying to call people eating meat a Holocaust for animals. It isn't, all it does is make them look crazy.
I agree in principle but Starkey making these sort of points feels like cold semantics in the face of horror, like saying to a gang victim who says he was tortured, "Well, that's not exactly torture in the correct meaning of the word, it's more like repeated grievous bodily harm".. Preserving the precise meaning of language is important, but if genocide is used as a generic word for "causing terrible suffering and death for millions of people of a particular race" I think we get the idea, and it's unhelpfully academic to quibble "but they weren't actually trying to wipe them out".
I saw a brief clip of Starkey being interviewed in which he said something (the accusation of getting rid of black people?) didn't work because there are so many "damn blacks" here.
"Damn blacks" is all I heard from it. He sounds like he is using the James O'Brien technique of saying something controversial then wriggling out of it on a technicality or pretending to be amazed anyone would take umbrage at it. Basically trying to be too clever by half
I’m sure someone of Starkey’s intelligence will look back at that tape, and agree it came across as more than a little racist - at a time when racism has been in the news, and other people have been choosing their words very carefully to avoid unnecessary offence.
I think he was purposely saying it to draw attention to himself then explain why he "didn't mean it like that", but if so, that's nonsense. It is blatantly rude and disrespectful at best - would any person, let alone any black person, hear it and not think it a pejorative statement?
Has he even apologised or said he didn't mean it like that yet?
Don't know, I just saw a clip of him being in trouble for an interview, and that there was a furore about it. Lets hope he is big enough to apologise
"Boris" is the name of the act. Use of the first name is designed to disarm, render the subject more approachable and less threatening, less subject to normal scrutiny, standards or constraints. Not a politician, more like an entertainer. Someone you could have a drink with. Someone a bit naughty. Somebody who doesn't need to be well briefed because oh look he's saying something funny. In short, entirely in line with his whole, remarkably successful, political strategy.
People are free to call him what they like, but if you call him Boris you're simply signalling that you've been groomed by a political predator and your views can be discounted appropriately.
Your last paragraph is utter garbage
I thought it was quite powerful, and it's changed my mind. I was in the "what's in a name" camp, but reading OLB's post has made me think again. Your uncharacteristically aggressive dismissal of what he's saying is I think mistaken.
Call him boris if you want but you then should call other politicians by their preferred given name with the surname in brackets if clarification needed. To use Boris and Stammer in the same sentence just shows bias.
People are allowed to be biased
Fair enough just admit you are
And maybe you could do the same
Never hidden my political affiliations or my opinion of both so called major political parties, jury out on Sir Keir Stammer so not willing to take a view yet.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
James. Although you can forgive Brown I think...he is many things but not a sex machine I wager.
You say this but to me that was one of the things he exuded. Virility.
Did you think he was x stones of hard muscle? :-)
lol - no I never mentally went there. It was more the eyebrows.
Will the next shadow chancellor please raise a hand!
Utterly dire. Cheerlead a lockdown and the economic hit and the inevitable loss of jobs that this implies. Then criticise the government for the loss of jobs.
I think the public will see through this - but it may take a while.
The Lobby hacks are furious about “their” briefings being televised - Guido has been campaigning for televised briefings for years.
As for the government having over 4,000 PR people to start with - what the...?
Televised broefings means fewer interviews with ministers and the PM, especially. That's what this is all about. Johnson has been running away from scrutiny his entire political life. Once again today we saw why.
Neither the PM nor ministers are/were interviewed at lobby briefings.
+1 - this is just moving things from a paper based world into one more suitable for the modern era - with video available when you want to talk about the briefing.
New media and independent media have been pushing for this for years.
The Lobby system allows the government to favour allowing a small group of MSM journalists to translate their own words, with the inevitable favouritism that relationship engenders on both sides.
After the woeful performance of the usual half-dozen Lobby hacks at the daily coronavirus briefings, it’s hardly a surprise that government are wanting to open things up.
Is igt not however also an act of centralization in No. 10? (Not sure if this is actually so.)
Yes it is a massive centralisation and a power-grab by Number 10. What it means is that departments need to let Number 10 know *everything* in case the new central PR department is asked about it, including the DSC for Biggles.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
I enjoyed Stodge`s header. I think he could be right - and I cling to the hope that there is more to Johnson than meets the eye. I`m delighted that Cummings, a liberal and such a formidible intellectual force, is at at the heart of it and suspect that Stodge may agree. I know I`ll be shot for saying so.
BANG BANG BANG !!
I went down at the the first BANG. Waste of ammo.
It was. But I will explain -
Could not say BANG - because I use that sometimes for violent agreement with a post.
Could not say BANG BANG - because then I'd have had to add "my baby shot me down" and that did not feel quite right.
Nicola just playing politics now saying she may agree to the lifting travel restrictions for the 10th July but needs to consider it in more detail
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
She`s always been playing politics. Make sure everyone knows we have our own government by doing differently from what Westminster says just because we can.
I have to say, I really do worry about Johnson's health. He didn't look great in that interview this morning. Whatever my misgivings with his politics, I do hope he's okay in the long run.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
People also use first names, when they neither know nor agree with someone they are arguing with, in order to be condescending
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
They mean it was simply doing it’s day job, of being on standby to refuel the QRA jets that keep the country safe. Like it doesn’t still say Royal Air Force on the side.
BBC radio news at midnight tonight said: “…after racist comments by David Starkey”. They didn’t even bother to say “alleged racist comments”.
Allegedly, not alleged. It is (at best) the racist nature of the recorded comments that might be in doubt, not their existence given they are on video, so "allegedly racist" rather than "alleged ... comments". I doubt we'll see yet another Starkey television series on the Tudors.
A linguistic question
Starkey said “so many damn blacks survived”. It certainly indicates he has some pretty antediluvian views. But is the actual *comment* racist?
If not then aren’t you attacking someone for what they believe?
The other contexts when you might say, "why are there still so many damn < something >" are, I think, where the something is negative - so many damn slugs, so many damn midges, so many damn racists, etc.
So the implication from common usage of the word in the sentence is that the continued existence of black people despite slavery is a negative thing - clearly racist.
Yes, clearly racist.
Clearly racist and on camera. No need to use the word alleged or allegedly.
If he hadn't used the word damn it would be a different matter.
I think it would still be clearly racist, though obviously a bit less offensive. Without wanting to get into the argument of whether the slave trade was "genocide", nobody would say "if the nazis committed genocide how come there are so many whites in Europe?"
His genocide arguments were incredibly offensive.
His argument was that genocides don't exist if some of the people survive.
At the same time, I wouldn't personally use the word 'genocide' to describe the slave trade. It's too loaded a term and carries particular meanings that don't fit especially well with the reality of what happened.
'Ethnic cleansing' would have been a much more appropriate phrase, especially given colonial slavery involved the moving or suppression of First Nation peoples.
Practically speaking, is there any difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Yes. Genocide is the deliberate attempt to wipe out a whole race. Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to empty an area of a particular race, which is more usually by moving them out by force (which also of course generally includes multiple deaths) usually followed by the repopulation of the area with members of a different race.
At its crudest the Holocaust was a genocide, the Sudeten German expulsion was ethnic cleansing.
Edit - I suppose you could say that all genocides are a form of ethnic cleansing, but not all ethnic cleansing meets the threshold for genocide.
Have a good morning.
Thanks. I realised my question didn't make my context clear. I accept ethnic cleansing can mean the forced displacement of a race, such as happened in Israel after independence, without the deliberate killing of those people. However, the slave trade like the Nazi Holocaust resulted in the inevitable deaths of millions, the difference being that the explicit elimination of a race through murder in the case of the Holocaust. I accept the intent might be an important distinction. However as I posited yesterday, if you took the gas chamber element away from the Nazi concentration camps, would it no longer be a genocide? The concentration camps were a key part of the German slave economy and as such maybe not so different from the African slave trade?
Checking in briefly:
Yes, it would still be a genocide. Because the gas chambers were not actually quite as important in the Holocaust as memory has made them. It is estimated that around half of the Jews who were killed were actually shot, many of them during Operation Barbarossa (without being sent into ghettos first) which is when systematic killing began. (Figures are here: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution ) Very large numbers also of course died of torture, starvation, disease and exposure.
While the ghettos and later, the concentration camps and death camps were economically important to the Germans, from 1941 they were progressively less so.
You could argue perhaps that prior to 1941-42 the Holocaust was primarily ethnic cleansing (which led to the ghettoes and other suggestions e.g. the 'Madagascar solution') but from thereon in it was by any argument a genocide, and the gas chambers were actually a fairly late development in that.
Allowing for all the evils of the slave trade, the Holocaust was on a whole different level. As was the Armenian genocide, Rwanda, the Volga Germans, the Uighers, even the Janjaweed in Sudan or the Vendee massacre in the 1790s. Because ultimately, extermination was not the aim of the slave trade.
Thanks. I should add I am OK with "ethnic cleansing", although I don't think it's a legal term in international law. There is a lot of it about and it should be recognised as such. But separating intent from effect isn't always easy and, gut feel, there are mass acts that need to be called out for the sickening horrors they are. The Nazi Holocaust is definitely one. The African slave trade is without doubt another.
Crikey - that could be taken out of context! I am sure you are not ok with ethnic cleansing, except as a term!
Nicola just playing politics now saying she may agree to the lifting travel restrictions for the 10th July but needs to consider it in more detail
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
She`s always been playing politics. Make sure everyone knows we have our own government by doing differently from what Westminster says just because we can.
"The name of Britain’s new prime minister isn’t actually “Boris.” “Boris” is a stage name, jokey and lighthearted. His close friends and family call him “Al”—short for Alexander, a rather weightier nomenclature—and this small fact about this interesting, likeable, but worrying person seems important. Why would a politician need a stage name?"
Super, I haven't seen that video for years. Thank you. I've just read in Wikipedia that this video was only shot, beacuse Simon was unhappy wth the original video. Chevy Chase was certainly a great choice for it.
A long way to go. Lloyd Russell-Moyle is still a shadow minister. Burgon still an MP.
Which way is he facing on BLM today? Dizzy Keir!
You've really got problems dude
One of them isn't changing my mind daily on something because I made a cock up in order to virtue signal and upset two groups of people I am trying to court!
So at a stroke we have 30k fewer cases. I wonder how much damage has been done to the UK because of this unnecessary double counting. If we'd been reporting these accurate figures for the last month would the UK still be seen as a leper colony like Leicester?
The key stat for me has always been the number of people admitted to hospital as I have always been unsure of the accuracy of the Covid test. For information there is now not a single Covid patient in any of Hampshire hospitals. So thats a County with a population of 2.1 million with no Covid inpatients.
Fantastic news! Does that mean we can all follow Boris' earlier advice and spend our way out of recession, down the pub? I have read that as a government invitation to get absolutely s***faced on Saturday, I suspect I am not alone.
Johnson has just been on radio saying that it is not a licence to get s***faced.
Perhaps he should have thought of that before deciding to open pubs on a Saturday. Criminal levels of stupidity.
The criminal stupidity is if the public abuse the situation.
In the recent poll 59% would blame the public if we have to go into lockdown again
Oh come on. They KNOW people will get shitfaced. They WANT people to get shitfaced. Its our patriotic duty to get shitfaced. JRM has bought a yard glass for shitfacery purposes. Mrs Gove wants to get back to a normal where shitfaced people have a good old fashioned British fight.
Shitfaced people spend money in the economy. Shitfaced people get merry and forget their troubles. The entire reason for 4th of July is to have a big party to show how normal things are. The idea that its the fault of the public for running out of their cage when you open the cage is absurd. And Shagger knows it. He's taking you for a fool mate.
Most pubs are not opening tomorrow
That has the recipe for even greater chaos written all over it. Arriving at the pub on Saturday, only to find it closed, will raise frustration. Onto the next to find it open, but not allowing "the boys" in due to social distancing rules, well they'll just go home a little disappointed, won't they?
No no. Apparently 70% of people say they aren't ready to go to the pub yet, so the 30% determined to get shitfaced with the boys and make a nuisance of themselves and spread the pox will behave. Obviously.
Genuine question
Would you seek an extension to lockdown and see even more devastation to jobs and peoples health, and how would you open our economy and when
The cretinous bumbling wazzock has killed tens of thousands of people by mismanaging this pandemic. Having finally got on top of it and locked us down we started to reduce the numbers. But they are still orders of magnitude above numbers in countries not run by fools. We can't copy them and unlock yet because according to his government's own process we haven't got on top of it. Whats the point of saying "if x then y" back in May and then bin that off and tell people its their patriotic duty to drink when y hasn't happened?
As the Ferrari car crash interview detailed there are a lot of sectors they have kept locked down. So we need to keep locked down a few more bits to squash the virus instead of letting it surge back and do "whack-a-mole". "I'm sorry our actions have killed your father and that our mallet missed that particular mole" is NOT a strategy. You want to see what happens when you unlock too early? 10k new cases a day in Florida. Is that what you want here?
On the 2nd July, number of cases of COVID detected in Germany - 503 On the 2nd July, number of cases of COVID detected in UK - 576
7 day moving average for new cases on 2nd July UK: 792 Germany 419
Exactly - not orders of magnitude (which would be 4,190 for one order and 41,900 for orders being two).
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
On topic, I think another parallel between Joseph Chamberlain and the current government might be in the outcome of what happened with negotiations for a German alliance in 1898. At a time of Russian aggression in the Far East, Chamberlain was worried that we were isolated, so looked for allies in Europe. The Germans insisted on Britain making all the concessions, while giving us nothing concrete in return. The Germans pushed too far and no deal was reached.
We broke off negotiations and eventually concluded alliances with other partners instead (Japan, France, Russia). Had the Germans been just a bit more flexible, a catastrophic war and their eventual defeat might have been avoided.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
Yepp. Of the five members of our family, only two of us are known by our first forename. Very confusing at passport control sometimes, which is about the only time the other three ever hear their first forename.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
I agree with that. If you use a forename you need to make sure you use the one that that person is known by, If you don't know such basic information about someone, then you should be using their surname.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
That's fine. I'm not accusing you of using it to be partisan.
The point is different. By using it you help cement the brand - from which he benefits big time - but because you are a supporter there is no "tough decision" for you to take (or not take) regarding this.
But, still, all "Johnsons" go down a storm with me. You can bear that in mind when writing to me. Use "Johnson" and immediately I'm slightly disarmed and willing to view whatever your comment is with a certain equanimity.
Nicola just playing politics now saying she may agree to the lifting travel restrictions for the 10th July but needs to consider it in more detail
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
She`s always been playing politics. Make sure everyone knows we have our own government by doing differently from what Westminster says just because we can.
She`s playing with fire.
Wait until the furlough scheme ends, with English businesses back open and Scottish ones still locked down.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
To be fair to Blair, he called himself "Tony" right from when he first started trying to get elected
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
You get used to it at least in Spain they actually call out John Mark as both given names are frequently used together.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
In Wales we use a very small pool of surnames, which are singularly more ubiquitous by geographical region. Up until a few decades ago, Welsh boys were unimaginatively mostly called David. Half my father's class in wartime Llanelli Grammar School shared the name David ..... It was therefore helpful to differentiate by middle name.
His point about saving too much depriving people of enjoyments while young also applies to the country as a whole, though.
Given the problems people with families have with buying homes you can make a case that the country as a whole is deferring too much income until retirement which should instead go to those of working age.
I guess his argument is that is more an issue of intra-generational inequality than inter-generational, but I think it might be a bit of both - though more a function of workplace pensions than the state pension.
Anyway, yes, very interesting and I add my recommendation to others to read. Thanks for sharing.
They mean it was simply doing it’s day job, of being on standby to refuel the QRA jets that keep the country safe. Like it doesn’t still say Royal Air Force on the side.
Did the taxpayer get good value for their £900,000 Instagram post? What a bunch of charlatans at Westminster.
Nicola just playing politics now saying she may agree to the lifting travel restrictions for the 10th July but needs to consider it in more detail
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
She`s always been playing politics. Make sure everyone knows we have our own government by doing differently from what Westminster says just because we can.
She`s playing with fire.
I read it the other way, why couldn’t the English government wait a couple of days for the other countries to review the list and comment? It stank of the minister saying up yours you have no choice but to fall in line.
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
They were all 'James'. But you make the mistake - made by many - of assuming there was ever the parental intent to call a child by the first name given. Most are known by the first forename , but a substantial minority are not - and never have been. I have always been known by my second name - even in infancy - and find it mildly irritating to sit in the Doctors' surgery where I am summoned by my first name.
That's right. It used to be common for people not to be known by the first of their given names and to pretend those politicians changed their names is sophistry or more likely ignorance. Boris is slightly different in that (we are told) his family and friends call him Al.
I've no objection to calling Boris Boris and will continue to do so, even if in a year or so there is a CCHQ reverse ferret when a focus group tells them the name Starmer has more gravitas, so henceforth Boris must be called Johnson.
If @rcs1000 has nothing better to do than mine the PB archives, can we have a word cloud showing what those who claim on this thread that "Boris" is just like "Tony" or "Gordon" actually called those Labour Prime Ministers.
I have to say, I really do worry about Johnson's health. He didn't look great in that interview this morning. Whatever my misgivings with his politics, I do hope he's okay in the long run.
Sounded far better on wed at PMQ's (i.e. less out of breath). This is not a comment on the content of his ramblings...
They mean it was simply doing it’s day job, of being on standby to refuel the QRA jets that keep the country safe. Like it doesn’t still say Royal Air Force on the side.
Did the taxpayer get good value for their £900,000 Instagram post? What a bunch of charlatans at Westminster.
Of course they did. BJ doesn't do gestures so the go faster stripes must have some real purpose. Probably not making that old lump go faster, but something real for sure.
Nicola just playing politics now saying she may agree to the lifting travel restrictions for the 10th July but needs to consider it in more detail
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
She`s always been playing politics. Make sure everyone knows we have our own government by doing differently from what Westminster says just because we can.
She`s playing with fire.
Wait until the furlough scheme ends, with English businesses back open and Scottish ones still locked down.
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
I think the cause of irritation is that they dislike him being successful, and so hearing people refer to him by what they consider a term of endearment vexes them, and they'd like it cancelled
Keir Hardie Ramsay MacDonald Harold Wilson Gordon Brown
that they all dropped to create a more appealing persona?
The idea that Boris is some unique exploiter of the technique while other politicians, especially Labour ones, are just plain unvarnished articles sounds awfully like - what's the word? - gaslighting...
James, James, James and James.
It’s rather amusing to watch people get completely wound up by names used for certain people - when in any other situation they’d say that we should absolutely call them whatever name they want us to use!
In any other situation? Really? If, for example, someone called Mr Boris Johnson was in court charged with various crimes, and he asked the court to call him "Boris" rather then Mr Johnson, there would be no advocates of pronoun-choice-respect telling people that he should have his wishes respected.
If I met Johnson and he asked me to call him Boris, I still wouldn't. He is no friend of mine, and I don't believe the "Johnson" identity is something he has rejected.
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
This is the only place that I've seen where people do care. It's such an odd and pointless discussion. Some politicians go by their first name (Dave, Boris, Ken, Maggie) and others don't (Blair, Brown, May, Major). What we call them on PB makes literally no difference to anyone. Call him Boris, Johnson, c***face, he's not going to notice.
I think we all have to remember the virus is going nowhere
Update from Spain
Thus, there are a total of 42 active foci in 14 autonomous communities: the Basque Country, Catalonia, Castilla y León, Andalusia, Galicia, Murcia, the Canary Islands, the Valencian Community, Extremadura, Cantabria, Navarra, Castilla-La Mancha, the Balearic Islands and the Community Madrid, most controlled.
Other outbreaks associated with socio-sanitary facilities, business activities in slaughterhouses in Lleida and Cuenca have also originated, others related to the social conditions of some groups or due to "unfriendly or unconscious" attitudes. Just because things are opening up one must not lower ones guard especially with the influx of strangers and holiday makers.
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
This is the only place that I've seen where people do care. It's such an odd and pointless discussion. Some politicians go by their first name (Dave, Boris, Ken, Maggie) and others don't (Blair, Brown, May, Major). What we call them on PB makes literally no difference to anyone. Call him Boris, Johnson, c***face, he's not going to notice.
I think it's fun to imagine the gnashing of teeth as people piously type "Johnson" whilst thinking "Boris"
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
This is the only place that I've seen where people do care. It's such an odd and pointless discussion. Some politicians go by their first name (Dave, Boris, Ken, Maggie) and others don't (Blair, Brown, May, Major). What we call them on PB makes literally no difference to anyone. Call him Boris, Johnson, c***face, he's not going to notice.
I think it's fun to imagine the gnashing of teeth as people piously type "Johnson" whilst thinking "Boris"
Those familiar with American slang will be smirking rather than gnashing their teeth as they type Johnson. OK, the childish ones familiar...
"The name of Britain’s new prime minister isn’t actually “Boris.” “Boris” is a stage name, jokey and lighthearted. His close friends and family call him “Al”—short for Alexander, a rather weightier nomenclature—and this small fact about this interesting, likeable, but worrying person seems important. Why would a politician need a stage name?"
Super, I haven't seen that video for years. Thank you. I've just read in Wikipedia that this video was only shot, beacuse Simon was unhappy wth the original video. Chevy Chase was certainly a great choice for it.
The pop videos that have really stood the test of time are the simplest ones, that was Paul Simon and Chevy Chase in 1986 - 34 years ago. Remastered in HD, it could have been made today.
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
I'm not irritated by it, but I suspect there's a political advantage as a result, and therefore have chosen not to go along with it.
Do you think Johnson would be as successful if he was known as Johnson rather than Boris? I think it's a necessary part of the act, of creating the personality that has done so much for him.
This isn't intended as a criticism in itself. All politicians must perform to an extent, but appear not to be performing. Johnson does it better than anyone in the UK - and that certainly irritates many of his opponents.
"The name of Britain’s new prime minister isn’t actually “Boris.” “Boris” is a stage name, jokey and lighthearted. His close friends and family call him “Al”—short for Alexander, a rather weightier nomenclature—and this small fact about this interesting, likeable, but worrying person seems important. Why would a politician need a stage name?"
So at a stroke we have 30k fewer cases. I wonder how much damage has been done to the UK because of this unnecessary double counting. If we'd been reporting these accurate figures for the last month would the UK still be seen as a leper colony like Leicester?
The key stat for me has always been the number of people admitted to hospital as I have always been unsure of the accuracy of the Covid test. For information there is now not a single Covid patient in any of Hampshire hospitals. So thats a County with a population of 2.1 million with no Covid inpatients.
Fantastic news! Does that mean we can all follow Boris' earlier advice and spend our way out of recession, down the pub? I have read that as a government invitation to get absolutely s***faced on Saturday, I suspect I am not alone.
Johnson has just been on radio saying that it is not a licence to get s***faced.
Perhaps he should have thought of that before deciding to open pubs on a Saturday. Criminal levels of stupidity.
The criminal stupidity is if the public abuse the situation.
In the recent poll 59% would blame the public if we have to go into lockdown again
Oh come on. They KNOW people will get shitfaced. They WANT people to get shitfaced. Its our patriotic duty to get shitfaced. JRM has bought a yard glass for shitfacery purposes. Mrs Gove wants to get back to a normal where shitfaced people have a good old fashioned British fight.
Shitfaced people spend money in the economy. Shitfaced people get merry and forget their troubles. The entire reason for 4th of July is to have a big party to show how normal things are. The idea that its the fault of the public for running out of their cage when you open the cage is absurd. And Shagger knows it. He's taking you for a fool mate.
Most pubs are not opening tomorrow
And most pub-goers are not going to the pub tomorrow.
For goodness sake! The 70% staying at home are not the ones we need worry about.
If it's going to make so little difference economically, which is your defence of the policy, why are we taking the risk?
Yeah, let's just keep everything shut forever until there is zero risk.
That is a failed argument, on your own terms.
You have said it is safe because hardly anyone will go out, which defeats the economic argument. I am saying those desperate to get to drinking establishments are the very people common sense tells us would those that would be best advised to stay away. A and E will be buzzing on Saturday, so I suppose some economic activity will be generated
Of course there is a balance, but the incidence of the virus is so low that the rewards likely outweigh the risk. If you required that the hospitality sector remain shut until there was no risk, it would probably be another year before they were open.
Yes it is a balance of risk, and yes we need to return to normal as best we can. However, the wizard wheeze gesture of opening the pubs on (American) Independence Day, which falls, this year on a Saturday is foolhardy in the extreme.
Why? If people want to go there are more hours in the day for them to do it. Otherwise it'd be a mad rush starting at 5pm.
Let's see how A and E copes on Saturday. Let's hope you are right and I am wrong.
They are probably better prepared than ever. No one is doing anything so admissions are way down!
Let's assume that is correct. It is still a poor justification for encouraging idiots to get rat-arsed.
Nobody is encouraging idiots but we just have to start opening our economy.
I would expect Starmer to be following a similar path to Boris but Boris has an army of remainers and the left who dislike him with a passion and that dislike takes away rational argument
Starmer , Boris. Why the difference in using surnames ?
Because some people are known by their forename, some by the surname. Get over it.
A bit more to it than that. "Boris" is a brand - and a very powerful one.
Remember 'Not Flash, Just Gordon'?
It's not Boris' fault that he can actually do branding...
It's not his fault at all. He's built a best-selling brand and hats off to him for it.
All I'm seeking to do is tip off those who are not his supporters but are buying into the brand - by promulgating its "Boris" labeling - that this is what they are doing.
For these people the switch from "Boris" to "Johnson" might feel awkward at first - a little forced - but as with many good habits perseverance will pay off and once it's established they will feel better in themselves and will never look back.
And if enough do it, it will cost Bor ... Johnson big time. In fact it could all but kill him off imo. That's the prize.
BTW, I am pursuing this initiative in flesh & blood life too, not just on here. If somebody in my presence calls him "Boris", I ask them if they are a supporter of his or the Cons. If the answer to this is "No", then I tip them off. Not tick them off, please note, I tip them off (as above).
Agreed. I have always preferred calling him "Johnson", particularly as it is a colloquialism in the US for penis. It is so obsequious when followers of an individual they don't know refer to their idol by their first name.
Exactly the same as the unthinking moronic lefties who refer to Corbyn as "Jeremy" or even Jezza. He is Corbyn - an extremely thick ex-leader of the Labour Party who allowed Johnson, a lazy and incompetent narcissist to become PM.
Just how childish are you?
Use of "Jeremy" was always a useful flag for unthinking Corbyn sycophant when in conversation with other Labour party members. The "Boris" thing is more absurd because it's so obviously a deliberate piece of branding and yet people won't see it.
It’s a good piece of branding and you’re absolutely furious about it.
It's not a matter of being furious. It's a matter of recognizing the issue and acting on it. Not if you're a supporter of his. If you're a supporter, all is fine and dandy. "Boris" away to your heart's content. But non supporters should try and make the switch. Drop the "Boris", go with "Johnson".
I wonder if there's a generational divide between those irritated at the use of forenames and those who don't care or prefer it?
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
I think the cause of irritation is that they dislike him being successful, and so hearing people refer to him by what they consider a term of endearment vexes them, and they'd like it cancelled
@Philip_Thompson makes a valid observation about older people considering the use of first names impertinent.
So at a stroke we have 30k fewer cases. I wonder how much damage has been done to the UK because of this unnecessary double counting. If we'd been reporting these accurate figures for the last month would the UK still be seen as a leper colony like Leicester?
The key stat for me has always been the number of people admitted to hospital as I have always been unsure of the accuracy of the Covid test. For information there is now not a single Covid patient in any of Hampshire hospitals. So thats a County with a population of 2.1 million with no Covid inpatients.
Fantastic news! Does that mean we can all follow Boris' earlier advice and spend our way out of recession, down the pub? I have read that as a government invitation to get absolutely s***faced on Saturday, I suspect I am not alone.
Johnson has just been on radio saying that it is not a licence to get s***faced.
Perhaps he should have thought of that before deciding to open pubs on a Saturday. Criminal levels of stupidity.
The criminal stupidity is if the public abuse the situation.
In the recent poll 59% would blame the public if we have to go into lockdown again
Oh come on. They KNOW people will get shitfaced. They WANT people to get shitfaced. Its our patriotic duty to get shitfaced. JRM has bought a yard glass for shitfacery purposes. Mrs Gove wants to get back to a normal where shitfaced people have a good old fashioned British fight.
Shitfaced people spend money in the economy. Shitfaced people get merry and forget their troubles. The entire reason for 4th of July is to have a big party to show how normal things are. The idea that its the fault of the public for running out of their cage when you open the cage is absurd. And Shagger knows it. He's taking you for a fool mate.
Most pubs are not opening tomorrow
That has the recipe for even greater chaos written all over it. Arriving at the pub on Saturday, only to find it closed, will raise frustration. Onto the next to find it open, but not allowing "the boys" in due to social distancing rules, well they'll just go home a little disappointed, won't they?
No no. Apparently 70% of people say they aren't ready to go to the pub yet, so the 30% determined to get shitfaced with the boys and make a nuisance of themselves and spread the pox will behave. Obviously.
Genuine question
Would you seek an extension to lockdown and see even more devastation to jobs and peoples health, and how would you open our economy and when
The cretinous bumbling wazzock has killed tens of thousands of people by mismanaging this pandemic. Having finally got on top of it and locked us down we started to reduce the numbers. But they are still orders of magnitude above numbers in countries not run by fools. We can't copy them and unlock yet because according to his government's own process we haven't got on top of it. Whats the point of saying "if x then y" back in May and then bin that off and tell people its their patriotic duty to drink when y hasn't happened?
As the Ferrari car crash interview detailed there are a lot of sectors they have kept locked down. So we need to keep locked down a few more bits to squash the virus instead of letting it surge back and do "whack-a-mole". "I'm sorry our actions have killed your father and that our mallet missed that particular mole" is NOT a strategy. You want to see what happens when you unlock too early? 10k new cases a day in Florida. Is that what you want here?
On the 2nd July, number of cases of COVID detected in Germany - 503 On the 2nd July, number of cases of COVID detected in UK - 576
7 day moving average for new cases on 2nd July UK: 792 Germany 419
Exactly - not orders of magnitude (which would be 4,190 for one order and 41,900 for orders being two).
The Scots and Welsh First Ministers are going to look very foolish when they come in line on the 10th July to the flight arrangements and exposed to just playing politics
They mean it was simply doing it’s day job, of being on standby to refuel the QRA jets that keep the country safe. Like it doesn’t still say Royal Air Force on the side.
So will it be going to the Falklands or Al-Udeid for three months like all the other V bombers? Will it fuck. Will it be used to bring 300 reeking and thieving squaddies back from Kenya? Will it fuck.
The MoD has just recalled (and is paying) for an extra A330 MRTT from the civvie surge fleet (G-VYGK) just to cover the gap in AAR tasking that's going to be left by the Brexit Belle.
Comments
"Maggie" Thatcher
"Dave" Cameron
Some are surname people
Kinnock
Trump
Clinton (the President)
Obama
Blair
Some are first (or abbreviation) + surname
Gordon Brown
John Smith
"Ted" Heath
"Tony" Benn
Joint Chiefs Chairman Confirms Soldiers Were Issued Bayonets For DC Protests
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/joint-chiefs-chairman-confirms-soldiers-were-issued-bayonets-for-dc-protests
Especially on "tricky" issues such a LGBT, BLM and, I`d suggest, an admiration of Cummings.
There is nothing "patronizing" about this - as I note @kle4 keeps saying - I am simply bringing an issue to attention for due consideration.
Did you think he was x stones of hard muscle? :-)
https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1279011295417819136?s=20
Boris is the self-styled rockstar politician. "Boris" is a term of endearment like Elvis or Prince. It is also a self- constructed character stage name, as someone has suggested.down thread.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
If you were starting a government communications operation, there’s no way you’d have 4,000 PR people but only ever brief a couple of dozen favoured journalists and do it in private. Not unless you wanted the government to be totally unaccountable.
Those couple of dozen favoured hacks are really going to squeal, but open briefings are a huge step forward.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
So, as an opponent of Johnson I will use Johnson, and if you find me using a politician's first name it's probably a sign I support them - or they've successfully won the PR battle to have me use their first name without thinking about it.
None of this is new. Labour made a doomed attempt to try and get people to call Dobson "Frank" when he was cast as the sacrificial lamb against Livingstone (who was known by more people as Ken then than now).
I can't imagine whinging about it though.
Will the next shadow chancellor please raise a hand!
I call Starmer Keir as my own personal way of getting back at those who insist on calling him Boris
Drain the swamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwBwKcQ1k84
I think the public will see through this - but it may take a while.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/03/scrapping-pensions-triple-lock-young-people
If she fails to follow England then Scots will just fly out of England's airports at the lost of Scots airports and jobs
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
PM's rebranded jet in alert incident off Scotland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-53277943
Could not say BANG - because I use that sometimes for violent agreement with a post.
Could not say BANG BANG - because then I'd have had to add "my baby shot me down" and that did not feel quite right.
So it had to be x 3.
Phew.
She`s playing with fire.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
We broke off negotiations and eventually concluded alliances with other partners instead (Japan, France, Russia). Had the Germans been just a bit more flexible, a catastrophic war and their eventual defeat might have been avoided.
The point is different. By using it you help cement the brand - from which he benefits big time - but because you are a supporter there is no "tough decision" for you to take (or not take) regarding this.
But, still, all "Johnsons" go down a storm with me. You can bear that in mind when writing to me. Use "Johnson" and immediately I'm slightly disarmed and willing to view whatever your comment is with a certain equanimity.
John Mark as both given names are frequently used together.
were unimaginatively mostly called David. Half my father's class in wartime Llanelli Grammar School shared the name David ..... It was therefore helpful to differentiate by middle name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Miller
His point about saving too much depriving people of enjoyments while young also applies to the country as a whole, though.
Given the problems people with families have with buying homes you can make a case that the country as a whole is deferring too much income until retirement which should instead go to those of working age.
I guess his argument is that is more an issue of intra-generational inequality than inter-generational, but I think it might be a bit of both - though more a function of workplace pensions than the state pension.
Anyway, yes, very interesting and I add my recommendation to others to read. Thanks for sharing.
I've no objection to calling Boris Boris and will continue to do so, even if in a year or so there is a CCHQ reverse ferret when a focus group tells them the name Starmer has more gravitas, so henceforth Boris must be called Johnson.
If @rcs1000 has nothing better to do than mine the PB archives, can we have a word cloud showing what those who claim on this thread that "Boris" is just like "Tony" or "Gordon" actually called those Labour Prime Ministers.
Personally I don't know anyone my age who is bothered by such things.
How on earth does she think she can police that and will the Scots be happy to be prisoners in their own country
If, for example, someone called Mr Boris Johnson was in court charged with various crimes, and he asked the court to call him "Boris" rather then Mr Johnson, there would be no advocates of pronoun-choice-respect telling people that he should have his wishes respected.
If I met Johnson and he asked me to call him Boris, I still wouldn't. He is no friend of mine, and I don't believe the "Johnson" identity is something he has rejected.
Update from Spain
Thus, there are a total of 42 active foci in 14 autonomous communities: the Basque Country, Catalonia, Castilla y León, Andalusia, Galicia, Murcia, the Canary Islands, the Valencian Community, Extremadura, Cantabria, Navarra, Castilla-La Mancha, the Balearic Islands and the Community Madrid, most controlled.
Other outbreaks associated with socio-sanitary facilities, business activities in slaughterhouses in Lleida and Cuenca have also originated, others related to the social conditions of some groups or due to "unfriendly or unconscious" attitudes.
Just because things are opening up one must not lower ones guard especially with the influx of strangers and holiday makers.
Do you think Johnson would be as successful if he was known as Johnson rather than Boris? I think it's a necessary part of the act, of creating the personality that has done so much for him.
This isn't intended as a criticism in itself. All politicians must perform to an extent, but appear not to be performing. Johnson does it better than anyone in the UK - and that certainly irritates many of his opponents.
"Hopeless, this man is hopeless."
The MoD has just recalled (and is paying) for an extra A330 MRTT from the civvie surge fleet (G-VYGK) just to cover the gap in AAR tasking that's going to be left by the Brexit Belle.